Shocking Eskom load-shedding data under Andre de Ruyter

A pity.

Load reduction does have controversial elements. Like how those that pay the municipality for their supply are still being cut and that's obviously not fair.

However the alternative is we just have to keep paying extra so politicians in corrupt municipalities can drive around in luxury German cars.
Actually load reduction is only done on Eskom direct areas, hence they send the notifications not the municipalities. There are some municipalities that do their own load reduction.
 
I feel cautiously optimistic about De Ruyter. Eskom seems to me to be far more transparent in recent times.

I understand load shedding if it's happening because they're addressing maintenance backlogs.

I also understand that electricity prices had to rise to deal with the debt built up by previous CEOs.

I don't like it, but I understand that it's necessary.

He's the first CEO in ages that has started addressing the debt problem instead of just making it worse. That alone puts him above the recent politically connected worms that have been running that schitshow.
 
Actually load reduction is only done on Eskom direct areas, hence they send the notifications not the municipalities. There are some municipalities that do their own load reduction.
ahh, still unfair to those that actually pay for their electricity, but I understand why it's done. Pressure needs to be applied. People in this country need to understand that nothing is free.
 
Loadshedding and load reduction are 2 different things.

Load reduction is targeting municipalities and areas that don't pay Eskom for electricity supplied.

If electricity is not being paid for then no electricity should be supplied.
I know people on prepaid who are being load-reduced. As you know, many people in villages don't even know what post-paid electricity is. So, how are they supposed to be guilty of non-payment?

Now, regarding load shedding vs load reduction, I am saying they are the same thing. The latter is cloaked in a lie, and I am refusing to use the terminology lest I seem to believe the lie.
 
I know people on prepaid who are being load-reduced. As you know, many people in villages don't even know what post-paid electricity is. So, how are they supposed to be guilty of non-payment?

Now, regarding load shedding vs load reduction, I am saying they are the same thing. The latter is cloaked in a lie, and I am refusing to use the terminology lest I seem to believe the lie.
Yes because there are a lot of illegal connections and people who aren't paying that keep overloading the system.
So you get reduced for 5 hours or the substation blows up and it's weeks for it to be replaced so no power for weeks.
 
I know people on prepaid who are being load-reduced. As you know, many people in villages don't even know what post-paid electricity is.
I'm sure there are individuals that are legitimately paying for their electricity. It's a shame that they're being caught up in the consequences of the greed and dishonesty of others in their community.
So, how are they supposed to be guilty of non-payment?
They tamper with or bypass the meter or connect illegally without even having a meter thereby detonating the transformer like a very expensive firework.
Now, regarding load shedding vs load reduction, I am saying they are the same thing. The latter is cloaked in a lie, and I am refusing to use the terminology lest I seem to believe the lie.
They're not the same thing. They're similar in that they both relieve the grid during peak load, but one is targeting primarily non-payers, the other is targeting all of us regardless of whether we steal electricity or not.
 
I'm sure there are individuals that are legitimately paying for their electricity.

They tamper with or bypass the meter or connect illegally without even having a meter thereby detonating the transformer like a very expensive firework.

They're not the same thing. They're similar in that they both relieve the grid during peak load, but one is targeting primarily non-payers, the other is targeting all of us regardless of whether we steal electricity or not.
What they also don't seem to realise is that if the reduction isn't done that local grid is popped it would be weeks without power, if shedding isn't done the entire country is without power for weeks.
 
I've been criticizing the guy. Let me say though that I appreciate that he is addressing the debt. I also understand that maintenance is important, and I support that. Also, that prices should rise until we find cheaper ways of generating electricity - I'm fine with that.

I give the guy 55 out of 100. It's a pass, but nowhere close to the 90's he is getting.
 
I assume these numbers are directly because more maintenance is being done. Previously Eskom would reduce load shedding by not doing sufficient maintenance and kicking the can down the road.
Here's the most recent occurrence of stage 4 load shedding:


Planned maintenance: 1,273MW
Unplanned outages: 15,087MW

Stage 4 from a year ago:


Planned maintenance: 5,040MW
Unplanned outages: 11,300MW

There's actually less planned maintenance and more unplanned outages.

-----------------------------

Is De Ruyter going to take the blame for this, just like how he was going to be credited for the assumption that there's more maintenance being done?
 
I'm sure there are individuals that are legitimately paying for their electricity. It's a shame that they're being caught up in the consequences of the greed and dishonesty of others in their community.

They tamper with or bypass the meter or connect illegally without even having a meter thereby detonating the transformer like a very expensive firework.

They're not the same thing. They're similar in that they both relieve the grid during peak load, but one is targeting primarily non-payers, the other is targeting all of us regardless of whether we steal electricity or not.
At least we are listening to each other, so that's good enough for me. Hopefully, one day, we'll transition to gas-powered and renewable electricity, and load-shedding will be a thing of the past.
 
If he has been taking units offline for maintenance, then its perfect. Do we then have any reports that show units under maintenance and the availability rates afterwards? Something concrete to show the work he is doing.
A quick Google shows that there's actually less maintenance and more unplanned outages than a year ago. But it's not going to satisfy his fan club. The goalposts will now shift to him inheriting legacy issues...
 
At least we are listening to each other, so that's good enough for me.
Hear hear.
Hopefully, one day, we'll transition to gas-powered and renewable electricity, and load-shedding will be a thing of the past.
It's not the type of electricity generation that's the problem, it's how Eskom has corruptly and ineptly managed it over the last 20 odd years.
 
A quick Google shows that there's actually less maintenance and more unplanned outages than a year ago. But it's not going to satisfy his fan club. The goalposts will now shift to him inheriting legacy issues...
I just give up.
 
A quick Google shows that there's actually less maintenance and more unplanned outages than a year ago. But it's not going to satisfy his fan club. The goalposts will now shift to him inheriting legacy issues...
If that's the case it's a big red mark against the guy and it paints a bleak picture going forward.
 
1628684006709.png
Red and black are unplanned, yellow is planned and green is EAF.
 
Yes because there are a lot of illegal connections and people who aren't paying that keep overloading the system.
So you get reduced for 5 hours or the substation blows up and it's weeks for it to be replaced so no power for weeks.
It would make sense if the reduction was a daily thing. Load reductions happen once a week during the morning peak and again once during the evening peak, why are the same substations not tripping on the other days when there is no load reduction?
 
I feel cautiously optimistic about De Ruyter. Eskom seems to me to be far more transparent in recent times.

I understand load shedding if it's happening because they're addressing maintenance backlogs.

I also understand that electricity prices had to rise to deal with the debt built up by previous CEOs.

I don't like it, but I understand that it's necessary.

He's the first CEO in ages that has started addressing the debt problem instead of just making it worse. That alone puts him above the recent politically connected worms that have been running that schitshow.
But you fail to realize that it is not necessary because of "debt built up by previous CEOs". Speak the truth and state that the increases are necessary because of ANC corruption.
 
I'll give my opinion about De Ruyter if he gets Eskom out of this mess. Mentioned before that if he steps away and hands it to some other twat in the same condition he found it. He's just as bad.
 
I have been following discussions involving De Ruyter for a while now. It seems like everything that happens at Eskom under him right now is not his fault. What's his role then? He destroyed Nampak https://citizen.co.za/news/2206538/...r-destroy-nampak-or-save-it-from-going-under/ , and currently, under him, there is secret load-shedding of 5 hours up to 3 times a week in villages across the country. These happen at peak hours and they are not reported, all so that it can be claimed that loadshedding is lower than it really is.

In short, I blame him. What is he being paid for?
He did not destroy Nampak. He lessened the fallout. Eskom is an entity I don't think can be saved.

I get your point on the load shedding and have shown previously it's the same thing. It's also not related to paying vs non-paying customers. Also funny how it's planned in advance and does not come as a surprise. It's however another problem that the ANC created.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X